User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2023/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lee Vilenski. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Happy New Year, Lee Vilenski!
Lee Vilenski,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
The Signpost: 1 January 2023
- Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief
- Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"
- Essay: Mobile editing
- Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022
- Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes
- Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?
- Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!
- CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.
Arbitration
- Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
- The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
- The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
- Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello Lee Vilenski/Archives/2023,
- Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
- 2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Turkoman
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, it is your claim that the concerns raised here are immaterial? Did you even spot that I had nuked out certain sections etc.? GAC4 implies that any article with an editorial dispute shall not be passed which you are oblivious about. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why you would "nuke" an article undergoing a GAN review when you aren't the nominator. I review the version when the review is started, and then take into account changes that were made to it as part of the review. I don't see any issue with GAN4 - I see the article as being suitably NPOV, unless you mean #5, regarding edit wars. There's nothing in the edit history to suggest massive upheavals in the state of the article, not to "change significantly from day to day". You can have a content dispute (which is all I read when I saw your comments) and still have an article be suitably broad. I feel you are too heavily involved in the subject matter to realise this meets the criteria, even if some items could be better. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
why you would "nuke" an article undergoing a GAN review when you aren't the nominator
- Sections and articles are different; this is basic English. Any editor has rights to remove mal-cited content in any article.- I gneerally avoid edit-wars and list down my concerns, which I did here. Nevertheless, I will proceed to whoelsale deletions.
- Indeed, I have interest in the subject and unlike you, do not go about "reviewing" anything and everything from snooker to car racing to medieval history to yoga and what not. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine, I don't expect you to review anything specific, however, GANs should be written in such a way that anyone can understand the topic. Your tone suggests you aren't happy, so I'd suggest collaborating on the talk page, rather than worry about an article assessment. I'd also like to comment that calling me "oblivious" and suggesting that I don't understand English is not something I appreciate. If you have any issue with the way the review was handled, there are places to comment on this (specifically WT:GAN or WT:GA) and I'll be happy to comment on what the review states. I'd also like to remind you that I took on this review specifically because you were unable to come to an agreement with the nominator, whilst I don't disagree that some of your comments should be looked into, they aren't suitably deal-breakers to pass a GA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, using the chronciles of a seventeenth century Khan of Kiva as a source is definitely NOT a dealbreaker! I am genuinely sorry for bothering you. Please do ignore me and partake in a few more reviews. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's fine, I don't expect you to review anything specific, however, GANs should be written in such a way that anyone can understand the topic. Your tone suggests you aren't happy, so I'd suggest collaborating on the talk page, rather than worry about an article assessment. I'd also like to comment that calling me "oblivious" and suggesting that I don't understand English is not something I appreciate. If you have any issue with the way the review was handled, there are places to comment on this (specifically WT:GAN or WT:GA) and I'll be happy to comment on what the review states. I'd also like to remind you that I took on this review specifically because you were unable to come to an agreement with the nominator, whilst I don't disagree that some of your comments should be looked into, they aren't suitably deal-breakers to pass a GA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Need a 2nd opinion on a GA Review I am doing
I am doing a GA Review on an article that I would like to pass to GA status except for one sticking point. I noticed you're an admin active over at WP:GA so I'd like a 2nd opinion on this issue, without making the Nominator wait. After all, I could be wrong and it wouldn't be right to make them wait because I made a mistake.
The article is Tomb of Aegisthus, my GA Review & discussion with the Nominator is at Talk:Tomb of Aegisthus/GA1 and the sticking-point is Ref #15. UndercoverClassicist has been cooperative/eay to work with on this Review but I am concerned that Ref #15 gives the appearance of using a Wikipedia article as the reference. They make good points about referencing (and their usage of somewhat-arcane referencing formats is masterful). Could you please take a look and let me know sometime soon? Weigh in here or there, whichever makes the most sense to you. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Shearonink. I'm not a big fan of using a citation list and having shorthand when they don't match - the ref in question doesn't link to a specific part of the bibliography. I'd either expect the bibliography to contain the info on the reference, or the reference list to have a fully laid out reference to what's being cited. That being said, it's not all that uncommon to link to other articles when plotting out citations. Even if it were an issue with the layout, it's such a minor thing I wouldn't hold up a GAN. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Bureaucrat chat - invitation to participate
The RfA for MB has gone to a bureaucrat chat. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:H. P. Lovecraft on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Lee Vilenski!
Lee Vilenski,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cloudflare on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nonfiction on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Laurence Cousin
Thank you @Lee Vilenski for taking the time to review Laurence Cousin article and for your helpful comments. All my best Lewolka (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- No drama Lewolka, I have completed your other article as well. Hope everything is good. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again! all the best Lewolka (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lok Sabha on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2023
- Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020
- News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion
- In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again
- Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery
- In focus: Busting into Grand Central
- Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100
- Featured content: Flip your lid
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022
- From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Rutles on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
FAC?
Hi Lee, hope you are well. A few months back you were kind enough to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1973–74 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1. I was wondering if you might have any spare time and fancy reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1937–38 Gillingham F.C. season/archive1? If not, no worries -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Lee, you said in your edit summary to nudge you if you didn't look at this FAC by the end of the weekend ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Plot summaries in episode lists
When writing plot summaries in episode lists in articles, is there really a minimum when it comes to how many words we should use? Rattatast (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Less than 200 words per episode, OR (not both) 500 in a plot summary for the season/show. Full policy is at MOS:TVPLOT Rattatast. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I already know that. The thing I don't understand is if a summary for an episode is under 100 words, why do some users call it "copyvio" without any evidence? Here are a few cases I've seen: [1], [2], and [3]. They would even even put hidden comments in episode sections, claiming a summary of less 100 words would be deemed copyvio, and those comments would even cite MOS:TVPLOT (here's an example: [4]). But nothing in the MOS:TVPLOT page says it's copyvio to write something under 100 words. Rattatast (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Rattatast "copyvio" refers to a copyright violation. Text copied from elsewhere isn't suitable for Wikipedia, as it is copyrighted. Plot summaries must be written by editors, not copy and pasted from elsewhere, regardless of length. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that "copyvio" means copyright violation. The reason why I'm writing this topic is that some users would call an episode summary "copyvio" simply because it's short but without proving if it's even copied from a specific media. This is unjust. Rattatast (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- You'd be better off asking the user(s) that removed the text where it was copied from if it really is your own work. I doubt that people are removing the text because it's a short summary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I could ask that user but I'm not sure if he'll respond. In fact, he never answered this complaint. Rattatast (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might be, but it's a bit odd not to confirm where the copyvio might have come from. Any ideas how we can sort this out BaldiBasicsFan? I'll revdel the stuff if you've got a source it is copied from. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Voicebox64 writes episode summaries on both Wikipedia and Fandom, as I proved on the 101 Dalmatian Street article on the Fandom Disney Wiki. Usually they write plot summaries for the wikis they use, but if they use text from another wiki they wrote for, does that count as WP:COPYVIO per say? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If they do it here first, there is no issue. Under CC-BY-SA, you could technically copy text from a page over, but you also need to give credit, so in practice it doesn't work. I'm not really sure what that has to do with this users query though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- For The Chicken Squad issue, I have written episodes summaries of my own with shows like Santiago of the Seas and Urusei Yatsura. However, those are rare occasions as a rarely write summaries. I don't copy paste nowadays though, but writing summaries with a 100-200 word scale can be quite difficult. Even if you write an original summary is less than 100 words, it could be suspected as copyvio. I might think about writing summaries for Chicken Squad in the 100-200 word scale now that you brought me here. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If they do it here first, there is no issue. Under CC-BY-SA, you could technically copy text from a page over, but you also need to give credit, so in practice it doesn't work. I'm not really sure what that has to do with this users query though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Voicebox64 writes episode summaries on both Wikipedia and Fandom, as I proved on the 101 Dalmatian Street article on the Fandom Disney Wiki. Usually they write plot summaries for the wikis they use, but if they use text from another wiki they wrote for, does that count as WP:COPYVIO per say? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that might be, but it's a bit odd not to confirm where the copyvio might have come from. Any ideas how we can sort this out BaldiBasicsFan? I'll revdel the stuff if you've got a source it is copied from. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I could ask that user but I'm not sure if he'll respond. In fact, he never answered this complaint. Rattatast (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- You'd be better off asking the user(s) that removed the text where it was copied from if it really is your own work. I doubt that people are removing the text because it's a short summary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that "copyvio" means copyright violation. The reason why I'm writing this topic is that some users would call an episode summary "copyvio" simply because it's short but without proving if it's even copied from a specific media. This is unjust. Rattatast (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Rattatast "copyvio" refers to a copyright violation. Text copied from elsewhere isn't suitable for Wikipedia, as it is copyrighted. Plot summaries must be written by editors, not copy and pasted from elsewhere, regardless of length. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I already know that. The thing I don't understand is if a summary for an episode is under 100 words, why do some users call it "copyvio" without any evidence? Here are a few cases I've seen: [1], [2], and [3]. They would even even put hidden comments in episode sections, claiming a summary of less 100 words would be deemed copyvio, and those comments would even cite MOS:TVPLOT (here's an example: [4]). But nothing in the MOS:TVPLOT page says it's copyvio to write something under 100 words. Rattatast (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
So you didn't remove the text because it was a copyright violation, but because you assumed so due to length? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Correct. There was an incident that happened with The Cuphead Show! where an IP removed the summaries for the purpose of vandalism, but another user whose logged-in thinks they were pasted from Fandom. However the user didn't give us proof. I'm not an expert but sometimes users may copy an overly detailed plot from Fandom though obviously copyvio. Most people I know don't do this when making plots over 200 words, but that can happen rarely. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- If a log-in user claims the text was pasted from somewhere without providing any evidence, it's probably just a bluff. Anyway, it's normal to write just the main part of the plot rather than the entire plot. Rattatast (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so just a reminder, we don't remove information on the presumption that the info is copyrighted if we can't find a source. We do have plenty of admin who work on this. For individual users, try WP:CCI. If there's any doubt, tag the information and enter a discussion as outlined in WP:CV. I can't tell you if the text Rattatast has added was a violation, but I also couldn't find where it may have come from. I would recommend communicating on the talk page for the article in question to move on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- With regards to text being judged as copyvio without evidence, I'm having that problem in the SuperKitties article. Rattatast (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- BaldiBasicsFan that's ridiculous, you cannot just remove information because you think it might be copied as it is short. I've already pointed you to the right places for where and how to deal with copyright violations. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per MOS:TVPLOT, summaries should be about 100-200 words in length, but pointed out in hidden note in many episode lists, "those substantially less than 100 words are most likely to be scrutinized for possible copyright violation." BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? So someone has left a comment (not in the MOS) that there might be copyvio, so it should be scrutinized, so you just delete, without checking? That's crazy. Anyone can leave a hidden comment. A larger written summary is just as likely to be a copyright violation as a shorter one. If you have a source location, fantastic, otherwise push it to the relevant noticeboard with your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Per MOS:TVPLOT, summaries should be about 100-200 words in length, but pointed out in hidden note in many episode lists, "those substantially less than 100 words are most likely to be scrutinized for possible copyright violation." BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- BaldiBasicsFan that's ridiculous, you cannot just remove information because you think it might be copied as it is short. I've already pointed you to the right places for where and how to deal with copyright violations. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- With regards to text being judged as copyvio without evidence, I'm having that problem in the SuperKitties article. Rattatast (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so just a reminder, we don't remove information on the presumption that the info is copyrighted if we can't find a source. We do have plenty of admin who work on this. For individual users, try WP:CCI. If there's any doubt, tag the information and enter a discussion as outlined in WP:CV. I can't tell you if the text Rattatast has added was a violation, but I also couldn't find where it may have come from. I would recommend communicating on the talk page for the article in question to move on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) FWIW, If I've understood copyright policy correctly, if the same person writes content on both Fandom (or anywhere else really) and also on Wikipedia, then there is no copyvio issue at all. You can publish your own material to both, under the conditions of each. If the material is on Fandom and written by someone else, then it can also be copied over to Wikipedia, as Fandom text is under CC-BY-SA... with the proviso that proper attribution information is provided... detail on that is at Help:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. In any case deleting material on sight, with no evidence that any copyvio has occurred, seems a little bizarre... — Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that you'd still need to attribute to yourself even if you'd written both. You can 100% plagiarise yourself. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Adding BrickMaster02 to this conversation as they were editing the SuperKitties article a lot. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lee Vilenski
Out of curiosity, what do you think about that. Would you mind to eventually help reach (new) consensus? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can't say it matters all that much, but we should probably make the titles a bit more exciting than "sustained success". Winning his first Ballon D'Or seems like a suitable comment. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review
Hi there. Long time no see. I have nominated [[Shogo Makishima]] for GA but couldn't find a review in the past month. It's a small article but it was copyedited. In case you review it, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
TFA
Thank today for 2020 Masters (snooker), introduced (in 2020): "This article is about the 2020 edition of the Masters, an invitational event for the 16 best snooker players in the world. Seven-time winner Ronnie O'Sullivan decided not to play, and was replaced by Ali Carter, who reached the final where he played Stuart Bingham. Bingham won the event 10-8, winning his second Triple Crown event, having won the world championship in 2015. He was the oldest winner of the event. The event was one of the best Masters event in recent history, with world champion Judd Trump scoring a century break in every frame he won. The tournament was one of the final ones before the break due to COVID-19."! - Happy new year (from vacation)! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Reminder for 'Wilfred Mott'
Thank you so much for your contributions to the Wilfred Mott discussion here.
Just wanted to leave a reminder that despite the consensus being reached, a question was still extended to you and others a couple of weeks ago, which would bear you answering if possible! Panda815 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Your offer about good articles
I don't know if you recall, but after my RFA you had mentioned if I wanted any help with tools, or writing more GAs, to reach out. When you have time can you take a peek at Frelinghuysen University? I'd like to get it through GA, maybe to DYK in time for Black history month, if at all possible. Where do you think it stands right now? Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Quick question on one of your edits. In my first GAN I got the comment
A comma is needed after "D.C." in all instances where it is not the end of the sentence per GEOCOMMA
. Is this true? Also, I just remembered there was one spot where I used a bare number instead of using the word. Now I'm embarrassed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)- So I took a little bit of time and skimmed the article - it's good. It probably just needs a little bit of a copy edit (I made a couple edits to the lede) and it's probably walk a GAN. Depending on the reviewer, you may get little or lots of suggested changes, that's quite normal.
- As for GEOCOMMA, that's not exactly true, it depends a little on the context of the prose. Even at WP:GEOCOMMA, it shows that this isn't always true. If we are talking about Washington D.C., United States, you'd use commas same as you would for London, England, but if you said "Harry came from London where he also won his first title", you. Wouldn't use a comma as it's not a combination of locations.
- However, this isn't all that important. Someone will pick up something that is missing or doesn't fit the MOS and that's normal. Don't worry about having someone say your article isn't perfect, every article isn't perfect.
- MOS:NUM actually allows for both numbers and words in certain situations. It's a little hard to explain, you should use words for large numbers (ten and above), numbers for ten and below, but also not intermingle them in the same sentence. There's also times when you have to use numbers (such as dates) and other times where you should always use letters (such as when it's displayed that way in a quote). Again, either a reviewer will spot it and mention how it works (I generally try to when I see it) or they won't. Generally at GAN, someone will see things that they notice when reading the article but things that take minimal effort to fix are more like helpful messages to make it even better. If you have some time (and I also have time), I'll drop you some messages on a few things I noticed on the article (as if I were reviewing it) offwiki. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 05:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. You know where to reach me if you find the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Promotion of 2022 World Snooker Championship
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox boxing match on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Niko Omilana on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)